Prescription drug privacy Here's one for the Nada File (my imaginary filing cabinet where I cram things that I'd like to just make go away). Several states have laws on the books to ensure patients that their history of prescription drug use remains private - a strictly confidential matter between doctor, patient, and pharmacist. That's a no-brainer, right? No one would mess with that, right? If only. On January 1, 2008, a new Maine law was set to go into effect that would have guaranteed the privacy of prescription records. But in mid-December a federal district judge ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment right to free speech. Now, I'm no constitutional law expert, but I do know there's a Fourth Amendment that ensures our right to privacy. And what makes this especially infuriating is that the judge's decision was rendered in a challenge to the Maine law brought by three companies that collect and sell medical data. Yep, you read that correctly. The judge decided that the "right" of these companies to buy and sell private prescription information should not be violated. A couple of weeks ago, Michele Cagan wrote about this ludicrous decision in her "HSI On the Spot" blog that appears on our web site. In her posting titled "Prescription Privacy?" (1/2/08), she had this to say about an additional maddening detail: "But, really, they're doing all of this for our own good. Here's one 'important' reason, cited by the corporations, that they need access to this information (and permission to trade on it): It will help 'monitor the safety of new drugs.' That sound you hear, it's me laughing so hard I'm crying." You can laugh and cry along with Michele's full posting at this link: http://www.hsibaltimore.com/redir/blog.html
| 
